The High Court · 2025

Judgment

7. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, HyderabaO. lnspector . General of Stamps & Registration, Moazzamjahi Market, Hyderabad. The District Registrar Hyderabad District. The Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Hyderabad. I\I.N. Ansqli (D1ed as per LRs_RR6 & 7), s/o. Late M.M. Ansari Aged about 70 years, occ Pensioner, R/o. Flat No.B2lF3, Ground Floor in M.c.F. No.3-4- 86415, situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. , M.Z.Ansari,^s/o. M.N.Ansari, Aged 38 years, occ: Business, R/o. 3-2-840t11, Kachiguda Station Road, Hyderabad. Samaiya An9a.rj, D/o. M.N.Ansari, aged 37 years, R/o,,8-2-840t11, Kachiguda Station Road, Hyderabad. RR6 & 7 are broug-h_t op record as LRs of the deceased Respondent No.S as per C.O. dt. 14.11.2425 in tA.No.lt201t(WpMp.No.5573t2d1tl Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in registering ...RESPONDENTS Cancellation Deed vide Document No. 738 of 2014, dated 13-03-2014 as illegal, arbitrary, without power, authority and jurisdiction and against Article 14,21 and 300A of the Constitution and consequently set-aside the same and further to direct the respondents 1 lo 4 not to entertain nor register documents in respect of Flat No. B2lF4, in luunicipal No. 3-4-864/5, on Ground Floor, admeasuring 920.00 square feet along with undivided share of land 36.00 square yards, situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. tNt m

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to entertain nor register documents in respect of Flat No. BzlF4, in lr/unicipal No. 3-4-864/5, on Ground Floor, admeasuring 920.00 square feet along with undivided share of land 36.00 square yards, situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.V.SUMANTH, REP. FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6 & 7: SRI V.SHESHAGIRI RAO & WRIT PETITION 10524 0F 2014 Between: Sumaiya Ansari, Dlo.ltA.Z. Ansar! Aged about 13 yery.s, Occ Studen!.fullNO[, reprei6nted by her natural Mother- and guardiah RizwanaJahan Wo- tvl.Z. Ansari, Aged about 37 years, Occ Pvt.- Teacher, R/o. B2lF3, First Floor M.C. H. t{d g-+-AO4/6, situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hydergbad. lnspector General of Stamps & Registration, Moazzamjahi Market, Hyderabad. The District Registrar, Hyderabad District. The Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Hyderabad. 5 6 7 M.N. Ansari (Died as per LRs RR6 & 7), S/o. Late M.M. Ansari Aged about 70 vears. Ocb Pension'er, R/o. Flat No.B2lF3, Ground Floor in M.C.H. No.3-4- 864/5, situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. M.Z.Ansari, S/o. M.N.Ansari, Aged 38 years, Occ: Business, Rlo- 3-2-840111' Kachiguda Station Road, Hyderabad. Samaiya Ansari, D/o. M.N.Ansari, aged 37 years, R/o. 3-2-840111, Kachiguda Station Road, Hyderabad. RR6 & 7 are brouqht on record as LRs of the deceased Respondent No.5 as per c.o. dt 14:11.2025 in lA.No.1/20'17(WPMP.No.S57512017l ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cou( may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in registering cancellation Deed vide Document No.730 ot 2014, dated- 12-03-2014 as illegal, arbitrary, without power, authority and jurisdiction and against Article '14, 21 and 300A of the constitution and consequently set-aside the same and further to direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to entertain nor register documents in respect ofFlat No. B2lF3, in Municipal No. 3-4-864/6, on First Floor, admeasuring 920'00 square feet along with undivided share of land 36.00 square yards, situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. LA. NO: 2OF 2014(WPMP.NO:13222OF 20'l4l ) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying. that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to entertain nor register documents in respect of Flat No. B2tF3, in Municipal No. 3-4-864/6, on First Floor, admeasuring 920'00 square feet along with undivided share of land 36.00 sqLare yards, situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.V.SUMANTH, REP. FOR M/s. INDUS LAWFIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6 & 7: SRI V.SHESHAGIRI RAO The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADT PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos .10523 and 10524 of20l4 COMMO ORDER: Heard Sri N.V.Sumanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions, Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of official respondents and Sri V.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 5th respondent in both the Writ Petitions, and perused the record.

2. W.P.No.l0523 of 2014 is filed assailing the action of respondent Nos.l to 4 in registering the Cancellation Deed vide Doc.No.738 of 2014 dated 13.03.2014 as illegal and arbitrary with a consequential direction to set aside the same $

3. W.P.No.10524 of 2014 is fiied to declare the action of respondent Nos,l to 4 in registering the Cancellation Deed vide Doc.No.730 of 2014 dated 12.03.2014 as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to set aside the same

4. Since, the issue involved and the facts are similar in both the Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. / / 2 W.P.No.1 of 2014

5. The facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.10523 of 2014 are that originally, the petitioner's paternal grandmother by name Smt.Akheelunnisa purchased the schedule property bearing Flat No.B2lF4, M.C.H. No.3-4-864l5, Ground Floor admeasuring 920.00 sq. ft. along with undivided share of land of 36.00 sq. yard, situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad under a registered sale deed on 21.03.1986 from the A.P. Housing Board. Subsequently, the said Smt.Akheelunnisa, out of love and affection towards the petitioner, had gifted the schedule property in favour of the petitioner on 07.08.2006 under a registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.3071 of 2006 and handed over possession along with all Iink documents, and the petitioner accepted the gift and possession. The 5'h respondent herein is the one of the witnesses to the said Gift Settlement Deed.

6. After the demise of Smt.Akheelunnisa on, 04.07.2012, the 5th respondent, who is the grandfather of the petitioner, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, unilaterally cancelled the Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.738 of 20[4 on 13.03.2014. 7 1 3

7. Aggrieved by the said cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed, the petitioner knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing W.P.No.10523 of 2014 stating that the 5'h respondent has nothing to do with the subject property and without having any right, title or interest over the property, after seven years of execution of Gift Settlement Deed, unilaterally cancelled the Gift Settlement Deed and the official respondents entertained the same by registering the document.

8. Petitioner firrther contends that once the document is executed and registered, subsequently the same cannot be unilaterally cancelled as per Rule 26(ixkxi) of the A.P. Rules under Registration Act. Petitioner therefore contends that the Gift Settlement Deed was executed by the original owner i.e. grandmother of the petitioner and that the 5th respondent, who is petitioner's grandfather, without any right, had ,,' unilaterally cancelled the same against the settled principle of law. 9 The 4th respondent Joint Sub-Registrar-l, Hyderabad filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the Writ Petition. However, it is stated that cancellation of Registered Gift Settlement was registered on

13.03.2014 by frrllowing the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad vide f / 4 Memo dated 18.07.2008. It is fuither submitted that rhere were instructions from the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and stamps, A.P., Hyderabad, through which it was ordered that Rule 26(k) of the Registration Rules is applicable for the previously registered Deeds of conveyance on sale only, but not for the deeds of Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA, Development of Agreement-cum-GPA, Partition Releases and Mortgages etc, and in view of the aforesaid Memo, any document other than the Deed of Conveyance of sale can be cancelled and registered, if they were executed unilaterally since amendment for Registration Rule 26(k) was not made applicable to those documents. Therefore, the 4th respondent contended that keeping in view of the Circular orders dated

18.07.2008, the deed of Cancellation of Gift Settlement dated 13.03.2014 presented by the 5th respondent was registered *a .flr" same is in accordance with the prevailing instructions issued by the Department from time to time t0 The counsel for the 5th respondent contend that the Registering Authority cannot go into the validity of title or disputes between the parties, and that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner herein is to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration and consequential i I t 7 1 5 reliefs. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anond Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ond othersl. 11 On the other hand, the 6th respondent contended that cancellation deed dated 13.03.2014 was registered in accordance with the Circular instructions issued by the Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps , A.P., Hyderabad dated 08.07.2008, and the said Memo clarifies that Rule 26(k) of the A.P. Registration Rules, 1908 applies to conveyance deeds oh sale and not to gift deeds, Development Agreements, GPAs, or partition deeds, and as such, the Sub-Registrar has rightly registered the deed of Cancellation within his lawful authority. 1,2. The 6th respondent further contended that the present \frrit Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, as the dispute between the parties pertains to civil rights arising out of an alleged cancellation of a registered instrument, and that the petitioner herein has an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent Civil Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act,1963. ' lzoroy ro scc 767 f / 6 W.P.No.1 0524 of 2014

13. The facts leading to filing of W.P.No.l0524 of Z0l4 are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property i.e. Flat No.B2lF3 in Municipal No.3 -4-86416, on First Floor admeasuring 920 sq. ft. along with undivided share of land of 36.00 sq. yards situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

14. The leamed counsel for the petitioner contended that originally, the 5th respondent purchased the said property from one B.Narayan Reddy under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.l85l of 2a02 dated 27.06.2002, who in turn purchased the same the A.P. Housing Board under registered sale deed dt.l l .06.2002.

15. It is further contended that the 5'h respondent, patJrnal grandfather of the petitioner, out of love and affection towards the petitioner, had gifted the schedule property in favour of the petitioner under a registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 07.08.2006 and handed over possession along with link documents and the petitioner had accepted the gift and possession, and since then, the petitioner has become the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property. The grandmother of the petitioner is one of the attesting witnesses to the said Gift Settlement Deed. \ ; I I { :r) 7 t6. It is funher contended that on 28.03.2014, the agents of the 5th respondent visited the schedule property to purchase the same, but the 5th respondent has no right whatsoever to sell or alienate or create any charge in respect of the schedule property, and on enquiry, the petitioner herein came to know that the 5th respondent, who is her grandfather, without any title or interest, unilaterally cancelled the Gift Settlement Deed dated 07.08.2006 and the same was registered vide Doc.No.730 of 2014 and the official respondents, without the consent of the petitioner, unilaterally registered the same.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the decisions in Thota Ganga Laxmi Vs. Government of A.P.2by referring to para Nos.4 and 5,wherein it was hetd that a sale deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally, and that cancellation of deed cannot ., be registered without the declaration of a competent Court and that the sale deed can be cancelled only after notice to the parties concerned.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner funher relied on the decisions in Haji Mohammed Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Prudesh3, Gaddam Laxmaiah Vs. Commissioner and Inspector Generol, Registration and '(zoro) ls scc 207 ' 201I scc online AP 72.4 / -r/ :L i 8 Stampsa, N.Sudeshkumar Vs. Olfice of Registrar and Stampss, Kapuganti Jagannadho Gupta Vs. District Registrar6, Fazal Illlah Khan Vs. State of A.P7., Kotli Rajesh Chowdary Vs. State of A.P-8, Kasi Gounder Vs. Chinnapaiya Goundere, Abdut Rahim Vs. SkAbdut Zabart\, Pagadala Bharothi Vs. J.Radha Krishnalt , Nakka Parthasarathy Vs. Nakka Krishnavenit2and judgment of this Court in G.Ganga Lakshmi Vs. The Stute of Telangano and otherst3 -

19. The petitioner therefore contends that the cancellation of registered Gift Settlement Deed unilaterally is in violation of law.

20. The 6th respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that he executed the registered Cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed on 12.03.2014 revoking the registered Gift Settlement Deed previously executed vide Doc.No.3070 of 2006 in favour of the petitioner and got the said Cancellation Deed registered as Doc.No.730 of 2014. u zot6 SCC online Hyd 815 'zotz SCC online AP 9l u zotz scc online AP 6l 'zotzscc online AP 473 t z0t9 scc online AP l8 'zoot sCC onI.lne Mad464 'o lzooe;6 scc 160 " 2012 SCC online AP 370 " 2ot3 SCC online AP 688 " Order dated22.08.2025 passed in W.P.No.27204 of 2015. I

21. It is funher contended that the 6'h respondent has got the Cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed registered as there is no prohibition against its registration if executed unilaterally without the consent of the other parties to the Gift Settlement Deed.

22. tt is further contended that the petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy of approaching the competent Civil Court

23. The counsel for the 6th Respondent contends that Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the A.P Rules is not violated. Rule 26(ixk)(i) of the A.P Rules states as "26(i) (k) (i) The registertng fficer shall ensure at the time of preparation .for registration of cancellotion deeds oJ previously registered deed of conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executam arfd claimant porties to the previously registered conveyonce on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration shott'ing ,atrrrl consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previou.sly registered deed of conveyance on sale: L Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution oJ'cancellation deeds by executant and claimant porties to the previously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed is executed by a Civil Judge or q government fficer competent lo execute government orders declaring the properties containcd in the previously registered conveyance on .sale to he / a . : ... :- ..o,:. ffi*it)'ir. 10 n government or assigned or endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law. " Learned counsel for the respondent contends that from the above rule it is clear that the provision is applicable only to conveyance of the sale.

24. This Court without going into the merits of the matter, is of the view of that the settled position of law is that once a document is executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally. The only recourse available to the aggrieved party under law is to approach the competent Civil Court by way of filing a suit for appropriate relief.

25. In the above context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thota Ganga Laxmi (supra) and batch, held : '(5. In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(k)(i).rrelating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 --- ... .... Rule also supports the observation.s we hove made above. It ts only when a sale deed is cancelled by a cotnpetent court thot the cancellation deed con be registered and that too after notice to the parties concerned. In thts case, neither is there any declaration by a competent .!,^ court nor was there any notice to the parties. Hence, this Rule also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were 1* wholly void and non est and meaningless transactions. " 26 Admittedly, the Registering Authority has no power to cancel the Settlement Deed unilaterally without following the due procedure and 3' 1l without issuing any notice to the affected parties. Even if a competent Civil Court passes a decree, the cancellation can be done by the Registrar only after issuing notice and following due procedure contemplated under law. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the registration of cancettation deeds vide Doc.No.730 of 2014 dated 12.03.2014 and Doc.No.738 of 2014 dated 13.03.2014. However, the aggrieved parties are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to redress their grievances, if any.

27. Accordingly, the registration of cancellation deeds vide Doc.No.730 of 2(ll4 dated 12.03.2014 and Doc.No.738 of 2014 dated

13.03.2014 are set aside.

28. Subject to above observation and direction, these Writ Petitions are allowed ,T

29. lnterim orders granted, if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs To, //TRUE COPY/ SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANI,JBEGISTRAR r=.(8m oFFlcER !t \

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Government of Telangana.

2. The lnspector General of Stamps & Registration, Moazzamiahi Market, Hyderabad.

3. The District Registrar, Hyderabad District. 4. The Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Hyderabad. 5. One CC to M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM, Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to SRI V.SHESHAGIRI RAo, Advocate toPUUj 7 ' Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at . Hyderabad [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies BSR BS \ ,I 4 I I HIGH COURT DATED i 1411112025 \ COMMON ORDER WP.Nos .10523 and 10524 of 2014 1HE SI'4 16: CI Ux * t ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS I rlbr 2